ghsa-xf7q-gx4p-f3pf
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-17 04:52
Modified
2022-05-17 04:52
Details

Buffer overflow in the process_ra function in the router advertisement daemon (radvd) before 1.8.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (crash) via a negative value in a label_len value.

Show details on source website


{
   affected: [],
   aliases: [
      "CVE-2011-3601",
   ],
   database_specific: {
      cwe_ids: [
         "CWE-119",
      ],
      github_reviewed: false,
      github_reviewed_at: null,
      nvd_published_at: "2014-02-17T16:55:00Z",
      severity: "HIGH",
   },
   details: "Buffer overflow in the process_ra function in the router advertisement daemon (radvd) before 1.8.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (crash) via a negative value in a label_len value.",
   id: "GHSA-xf7q-gx4p-f3pf",
   modified: "2022-05-17T04:52:37Z",
   published: "2022-05-17T04:52:37Z",
   references: [
      {
         type: "ADVISORY",
         url: "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-3601",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "http://www.litech.org/radvd/CHANGES",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/10/06/3",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/USN-1257-1",
      },
   ],
   schema_version: "1.4.0",
   severity: [],
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.

Security Advisory comment format.

This schema specifies the format of a comment related to a security advisory.

UUIDv4 of the comment
UUIDv4 of the Vulnerability-Lookup instance
When the comment was created originally
When the comment was last updated
Title of the comment
Description of the comment
The identifier of the vulnerability (CVE ID, GHSA-ID, PYSEC ID, etc.).



Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.